What Happened in the Ukraine?

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

Look. No one has threatened ethnic Russian civilians–Ukrainian citizens, in large part–in Crimea prior to this week. You have bought the premise, whole and undiluted, without any tangible proof of a threat, now or in the future. (Show us the report of Ukrainian fascists surrounding the fleet in Sevastopol. It is not happening, it will not happen…or are you telling me that the Russian Parliament is so fearful of a fantasy.) [/quote]

Again, it does not matter if anybody is specifically threatening ethnic Russians. The fact is that civil war in Ukraine is a very real possibility right now, and there is no denying that civil war in Ukraine threatens the lives of the millions of Russians living in the Ukraine. [/quote]
Dear Professor, please examine what you have written. “It does not matter…” There need be no real threat. Thus, no reason is needed to engage a peaceful neighbor, only the concocted notion of a threat is sufficient to initiate an aggressive notion. From this all the remaining follows…

[/quote]
Second, Russian forces–in disguised uniform–have brandished weapons, surrounded the provincial parliament, demanded that Ukrainian forces abandon their bases and surrender their weapons. This is an invasion. Be proud of it, if you choose, but why disguise the intention?

No, people in unmarked military uniforms with equipment that can be found in large amounts in any part of the former Soviet Union have done these things. You do not have any more proof that these people are Russian military units than I do that they are not.

Right. Dozens of units in identical unmarked uniforms, with discipline, take over government buildings, and threatened the national forces of Ukraine. It is all spontaneous. How could anyone think that this is organized or manned by Russian government operatives?[quote]

Third, the presence of armed foreign–yes, foreign–forces on Ukrainian territory is unprovoked and can only serve to provoke the violence that the Russian parliament piously authorizes.

You keep overlooking the fact that the Russian military forces in Crimea are allowed the be there by the treaty we have with Ukraine allowing us to maintain our base there.
[/quote]
The forces allowed under the agreement are the naval forces, and perhaps other forces in recognized uniform, following the norms of the Ukrainian government, yes? Who then authorizes these masked thugs in unmarked uniforms? I do not believe any Ukrainian government did so.

Were I to believe in the proffered reasons for this invasion, I would also believe that the vaunted Russian military could have waited for the first real threat, and closed off the entire peninsula in 6 hours. A “preemptory” invasion is entirely unwarranted here, and is only a pretext to an expanded presence and violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. Every example you offer–South Ossetia, Georgia–is precedent, not a legitimation.

[quote]
I have proffered no reasons for the supposed invasion of Crimea because we have not invaded Crimea. We do not need to invade Crimea. If we wanted Crimea, we could have kept it back in the 1950’s when we GAVE it to Ukraine peacefully, we could have taken it back at any time during the reign of the Soviet Union, we could have taken it back during the confusion of the fall of the Soviet Union, and there has been enough support within the Crimean Parliament pretty much every election cycle in the past 20 some odd years for Crimea to secede and rejoin Russia. There is just no need to use force to take it.[/quote]

FIne. Did I miss the democratic vote last week by which Crimea requested invasion–ah…“fraternal reunion?” If the “supposed invasion” was unnecessary, what just happened?
I suppose we shall both see what force or threat can accomplish.

[DrSkeptix]

I give up…on the mangled quote function only.
Dr Matt’s opinon is respected, nevertheless, but should we all pretend not to see the real motivation behind the imminent disaster?

For the horror of Ukrainian national history, see

Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin: Snyder, Timothy: 9780465031474:...

[magick]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
First, we have not invaded. Our treaty with Ukraine allows us to deploy up to 25,000 ground troops with armored support vehicles and such in order to protect our interests, with very broad provisions as to the actions those troops can take. Even the highest estimates put the number of troops we have in the Crimea at less than that so there is no volition of our treaty or international law.[/quote]

Good to know.

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
Second, with the situation the way things are in Ukraine, do you not see the need for Russia to not only secure a very important strategic base but also protect the many Russians living in the area? Allow me to offer an example. Say there are a group of Americans living in a foreign country in a concentrated area, we will call this area a consulate with the head of it called the Ambassador. Say there is also an important American military/paramilitary group located there too. Now, say there is evidence of unrest and impending violence in the area. Do you not think that America should increase its military presence in order to protect it’s citizens and military interests there, despite what the international community may think?[/quote]

Oh don’t misunderstand, I actually agree with Russia’s actions in this.

I just want to know if there’s more to it besides the naval base and the fact that Crimea is the gateway to the Med. for Russia, and Russia would probably really hate to see any possible chance of losing said gateway.

But everyone is just talking about the political issues here. I’m sure Russia has a big economic stake in Crimea and Ukraine, and I would like to know if other people have some information on that.

[MaximusB]

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

I thought you were a US citizen, Matt. Was I mistaken?
[/quote]

No, I am a citizen of the United States of America, but I am also a citizen of the Russian Federation and was a citizen of the Soviet Union before that. Nothing can change the fact that I was born and raised in what is now Russia. The fact that I am a citizen of the US and Russia is what makes this situation really hard for me.[/quote]

As far as I know, a condition of naturalization is holding no allegiance to foreign powers. At a minimum, that would mean giving up prior citizenships.

Am I mistaken?[/quote]

It depends on when he was naturalized.

The rules for naturalization have changed over the years, so it depends on what the rules were at the time of naturalization.

[kamui]

Exactly. Putin is asserting the right of the Russian Federation to use force to protect Russian within Ukraine in the event that violence breaks out. You will notice that, even though parliament has authorized the use of force, we have not done so. We will only do so if necessary to protect Russian lives and Russian interests, as well as Ukrainian lives.

For the record, i don’t find this argument reassuring.
I find it absolutely terrifying.

Those Russian lives in Ukraine are not russian by nationality. They are Russian by ethnicity.
And since this protection can be extended not only to Russian but to Slavs, this means that this argument is a racial, if not racist, one.

In my hears, it sound very much like a panslavic equivalent of the pangermanist arguments of september 1938.

[SexMachine]

[quote]kamui wrote:

Exactly. Putin is asserting the right of the Russian Federation to use force to protect Russian within Ukraine in the event that violence breaks out. You will notice that, even though parliament has authorized the use of force, we have not done so. We will only do so if necessary to protect Russian lives and Russian interests, as well as Ukrainian lives.

For the record, i don’t find this argument reassuring.
I find it absolutely terrifying.

Those Russian lives in Ukraine are not russian by nationality. They are Russian by ethnicity.
And since this protection can be extended not only to Russian but to Slavs, this means that this argument is a racial, if not racist, one.

In my hears, it sound very much like a panslavic equivalent of the pangermanist arguments of september 1938.

[/quote]

Hey, the modern Greeks are of Slavic origin. I think Putin should invade Greece to ‘protect’ the people. Sure that makes sense.

[smh_23]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

The raid on OBL’s compound was “one of the most courageous decisions I had ever witnessed in the White House.”

[/quote]

I don’t buy this either.
[/quote]

Well, it’s his word against yours. He certainly means it.[/quote]

While obviously any opinion other than his, or any suggestion that his description may have a touch of dramatization to sell a book is pure speculation, we are talking about POTUS here.

I just don’t see any individual with the will to power to become POTUS or the cunning political mind, presence and ambition to be re-elected in the proverbial shithole that is American election cycles passing up this opportunity.

There is very little down side for being wrong compared to the upside of being right. I can’t imagine there would be any speculation Bush wouldn’t have also given it the green light, or Clinton before him. [/quote]

I thought this too until it was made clear how much doubt existed and how many people were advising him that going in was going to be both fruitless and very risky, both politically and geopolitically.

Anyway, point is, there is very little weakness on FP, and some real strength. By the way, starting wars without good reason and without clear goals contributes to weakness, not strength, so, of the Presidents we’ve had since 9/11, I call Obama the strongest by a landslide.

Edit: I don’t doubt that Bush would’ve gone in.

The key is knowing when to go in, and when to not go in. That’s strength.

[Dr_Matt581]

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

I thought you were a US citizen, Matt. Was I mistaken?
[/quote]

No, I am a citizen of the United States of America, but I am also a citizen of the Russian Federation and was a citizen of the Soviet Union before that. Nothing can change the fact that I was born and raised in what is now Russia. The fact that I am a citizen of the US and Russia is what makes this situation really hard for me.[/quote]

As far as I know, a condition of naturalization is holding no allegiance to foreign powers. At a minimum, that would mean giving up prior citizenships.

Am I mistaken?[/quote]

Yes, you are mistaken. Dual (multiple would be a better term) citizenship is very much allowed and not all that uncommon among immigrants in the US. In fact, US Senator Ted Cruz is a dual citizen, his other citizenship is for Canada. Representative Bachmann once held a Swiss (or some other country that starts with an “S”) citizenship but I think she renounced it a while back.

[Dr_Matt581]

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
“We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today?s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.”

Franklin Roosevelt? Jimmy Carter? Barack Obama?

No, one Vladimir Putin, in his op-ed piece in the New York Times, Sept 11, 2013.

I guess “international law” only applies to the US and its missteps in Syria, and never to Putin and Russian, anywhere, anytime.
[/quote]

Exactly. Putin is asserting the right of the Russian Federation to use force to protect Russian within Ukraine in the event that violence breaks out. You will notice that, even though parliament has authorized the use of force, we have not done so. We will only do so if necessary to protect Russian lives and Russian interests, as well as Ukrainian lives.
[/quote]

“We will only…”

How in the world can you speak with such certainty and confidence about what a man like Putin will do?

Do you hold NO scepticisn at all about these events?[/quote]

I can speak with such certainty because similar scenarios have played out in recent history. Of course, most people have not heard of Ossetia or Abkhazia so they think that the situation in Ukraine is unique, but in reality it is not.

[Dr_Matt581]

DrSkeptix, I will try to sort through that tangled mess of quotes later today.

[smh_23]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

Look. No one has threatened ethnic Russian civilians–Ukrainian citizens, in large part–in Crimea prior to this week. You have bought the premise, whole and undiluted, without any tangible proof of a threat, now or in the future. (Show us the report of Ukrainian fascists surrounding the fleet in Sevastopol. It is not happening, it will not happen…or are you telling me that the Russian Parliament is so fearful of a fantasy.) [/quote]

Again, it does not matter if anybody is specifically threatening ethnic Russians. The fact is that civil war in Ukraine is a very real possibility right now, and there is no denying that civil war in Ukraine threatens the lives of the millions of Russians living in the Ukraine. [/quote]

Dear Professor, please examine what you have written. “It does not matter…” There need be no real threat. Thus, no reason is needed to engage a peaceful neighbor, only the concocted notion of a threat is sufficient to initiate an aggressive notion. From this all the remaining follows…

Second, Russian forces–in disguised uniform–have brandished weapons, surrounded the provincial parliament, demanded that Ukrainian forces abandon their bases and surrender their weapons. This is an invasion. Be proud of it, if you choose, but why disguise the intention?

No, people in unmarked military uniforms with equipment that can be found in large amounts in any part of the former Soviet Union have done these things. You do not have any more proof that these people are Russian military units than I do that they are not.

Right. Dozens of units in identical unmarked uniforms, with discipline, take over government buildings, and threatened the national forces of Ukraine. It is all spontaneous. How could anyone think that this is organized or manned by Russian government operatives?

Third, the presence of armed foreign–yes, foreign–forces on Ukrainian territory is unprovoked and can only serve to provoke the violence that the Russian parliament piously authorizes.

You keep overlooking the fact that the Russian military forces in Crimea are allowed the be there by the treaty we have with Ukraine allowing us to maintain our base there.

The forces allowed under the agreement are the naval forces, and perhaps other forces in recognized uniform, following the norms of the Ukrainian government, yes? Who then authorizes these masked thugs in unmarked uniforms? I do not believe any Ukrainian government did so.

[quote]

Were I to believe in the proffered reasons for this invasion, I would also believe that the vaunted Russian military could have waited for the first real threat, and closed off the entire peninsula in 6 hours. A “preemptory” invasion is entirely unwarranted here, and is only a pretext to an expanded presence and violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. Every example you offer–South Ossetia, Georgia–is precedent, not a legitimation.

I have proffered no reasons for the supposed invasion of Crimea because we have not invaded Crimea. We do not need to invade Crimea. If we wanted Crimea, we could have kept it back in the 1950’s when we GAVE it to Ukraine peacefully, we could have taken it back at any time during the reign of the Soviet Union, we could have taken it back during the confusion of the fall of the Soviet Union, and there has been enough support within the Crimean Parliament pretty much every election cycle in the past 20 some odd years for Crimea to secede and rejoin Russia. There is just no need to use force to take it.[/quote]

FIne. Did I miss the democratic vote last week by which Crimea requested invasion–ah…“fraternal reunion?” If the “supposed invasion” was unnecessary, what just happened?
I suppose we shall both see what force or threat can accomplish.

[smh_23]

^ Those are Dr. S’s words, not mine. I think I fixed it? Hopefully I didn’t attribute the wrong words to the wrong person. All you doctors are interchangeable.

[Dr_Matt581]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
^ Those are Dr. S’s words, not mine. I think I fixed it? Hopefully I didn’t attribute the wrong words to the wrong person. All you doctors are interchangeable.[/quote]

Hey, that is extremely offensive! DrSkeptix is just an MD (I think)

[smh_23]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
^ Those are Dr. S’s words, not mine. I think I fixed it? Hopefully I didn’t attribute the wrong words to the wrong person. All you doctors are interchangeable.[/quote]

Hey, that is extremely offensive! DrSkeptix is just an MD (I think) :)[/quote]

My father has a PhD in history and often pulls the “doctor” card when we get into an argument about medicine/science, despite the fact that he last did a math problem in the late 1950s.

[Dr_Matt581]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
^ Those are Dr. S’s words, not mine. I think I fixed it? Hopefully I didn’t attribute the wrong words to the wrong person. All you doctors are interchangeable.[/quote]

Hey, that is extremely offensive! DrSkeptix is just an MD (I think) :)[/quote]

My father has a PhD in history and often pulls the “doctor” card when we get into an argument about medicine/science, despite the fact that he last did a math problem in the late 1950s.[/quote]

A lot of people with doctorates do that. Personally, I prefer “professor” to “doctor” anyway. I just wish I could do a good Farnsworth impression.

[pat]

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

I thought you were a US citizen, Matt. Was I mistaken?
[/quote]

No, I am a citizen of the United States of America, but I am also a citizen of the Russian Federation and was a citizen of the Soviet Union before that. Nothing can change the fact that I was born and raised in what is now Russia. The fact that I am a citizen of the US and Russia is what makes this situation really hard for me.[/quote]

As far as I know, a condition of naturalization is holding no allegiance to foreign powers. At a minimum, that would mean giving up prior citizenships.

Am I mistaken?[/quote]

Yes, you are mistaken. Dual (multiple would be a better term) citizenship is very much allowed and not all that uncommon among immigrants in the US. In fact, US Senator Ted Cruz is a dual citizen, his other citizenship is for Canada. Representative Bachmann once held a Swiss (or some other country that starts with an “S”) citizenship but I think she renounced it a while back.[/quote]

I have dual citizenship…

[pat]

I think I see exactly how this is going to go. Russia will take the Ukraine, the people will scream and shout for a bit, things will calm down and ultimately nothing will happen. People will forget and we will be back to obsessing over Beiber and Miley Cyrus’s tongue.
This is a freebie for Russia. They know nothings going to happen. They can do what they want with the Ukraine and the world ain’t gonna do shit about it. The implications are huge though. What it means for the baltics and former eastern European countries has to put them on edge.

Putin wins this one. He won in Syria, he’s making a mockery of us. Thanks obama.